loonyblog.

Today's maddening news items.

CNN: Obesity indicator on student report cards?

Truly a wonderful day for education in this country.

Ohh...THAT'S why I hate GWB.

Seriously though, this is some scary stuff right here. I fear for the future of this country when people this extreme carry any kind of political influence.

<Expletive deleted>

OMG KERRY WON.

Let's hear it for America.

Well gosh, this was certainly a pleasant surprise, wasn't it? I must confess, I did not expect to see Kerry win, and if you ask me (keeping in mind that this is being written before the election's over) it was all just a crap shoot in the end. No, this election is not a triumph of the electoral process, although I'm sure there will be some in the Democratic party who swear it was, but rather it's a statistical win, where Kerry could just as easily have lost as won.

On the plus side, we can now relax in the knowledge that those Supreme Court justices who are on the verge of death/retirement/irrelevancy can safely step down without having to worry about destroying the country in the process. And yet, the fact that this election was so close doesn't fill me with much hope. Oh sure, I think Kerry will turn out to be a decent enough president, but I think he's going to have a hell of a time dealing with a bitterly divided country, where half the people wanted the other guy to win, and a senate that mirrors the feeling across the country.

Kerry will walk into office while being under fire from all sides of the political spectrum. As far as I'm concerned, while out there on the trail, Kerry never really matured into the kind of candidate this country needed. His policies were all painfully middle-of-the-road, his speeches attempted to woo too many people while energizing none, and while his running-mate projected passion, Kerry never quite did. His performance in the debates was enough to secure my vote, but I didn't do so with much enthusiasm.

Having said all of that, I certainly I have more hope for the next four years than I did had that other wackjob been reelected, but most of that is based on my hope that Kerry becomes a better president than he was a campaign leader. I think there's a solid chance of that happening. At the very least, this guy's got more in common with my own beliefs than the other guy (actually, I suspect they're much more in line with my beliefs than he's willing to say publicly).

So let's all have a brief celebration, and then start preparing Kerry for the onslaught of hate from the right wing. It's going to be a tough four years...but at least we've got the better man at the helm.

Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.

Well that's that, we're condemned to another four years under George W. Bush. I think it's not at all an understatement to say that this entire election has been a farce, with both sides doing nothing but rallying up their most fervent supporters and failing to connect whatsoever with any swing voters. The end result, as we've seen is that this country is more divided than ever, and with this particular result, we're going to see all those new, young (and mostly Democratic) voters grow increasingly cynical at the process. Whatever the voter turnout was among first-time, young voters, those same voters are much less likely to vote next time.

I'm sure we're going to have lots of people pointing fingers over the coming weeks and months, and I don't see why I have to be any different, so I'm going to point my finger squarely at John Kerry, for absolutely failing to gel into a real candidate. Considering how much the core base of the Democratic party hates George W. Bush, you would think Kerry would have reflected that in his campaign, but he didn't. Instead, we had him saying how much he dislikes George Bush's policies, but at the same time, coming up with these middle-of-the-road alternatives that failed to distance him properly from Bush.

As a result, we've elected John Jackson, not Jack Johnson. Congratulations, America. I fear for the future of this country, and most immediately, I fear for the future of the aging justices on the Supreme Court, who have to hang on for another four years, or else this country's going to bend over backwards for its most radically religious, conservative wacko contingency.

Four more years.

Sigh.

Genius.

Rallying the base.

L.A. Times: Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes

(Via Electoral-Vote.com.)

Tuesday.

In any event, this will all be over on Tuesday, thank god. I have decided to do something rather strange for this event. I will be writing two completely separate blog entries: one to be posted if Kerry wins, and one to be posted if Kerry loses. Both will eventually be put online for all to read, although only one will go up on Tuesday or Wednesday (whenever the outcome is final). In the event of a long, drawn out court battle (have you read some of these worst case scenarios? They're insane!), I don't know what I'll do. I'm hoping it won't come down to that.

So check back on Wednesday for my reaction to the election. Either way, it'll all be over once and for all.

My god, they're related!

Thanks Electoral-Vote and Political Wire for the tip.

"I won't be your monkey"

I haven't watched the Daily Show in years...after 9/11 I decided I no longer had much of a tolerance for that kind of cynicism. But seeing Stewart rail into these two (he also called them hacks and even at one point called Carlson a dick), I gotta say, I'm setting the TiVo now. Whatever silliness I see on the Daily Show, no matter how cynical, it can't be any worse than the nightly minstrel shows on cable news channels.

If you missed it live (and chances are you did -- I certainly did), do yourself a favor and check it out over at IFilm, as they never re-run Crossfire.

A possibly depressing addition to the site.

Independence day.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Ugh.

There's a movement among conservatives to put Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill (thanks Jake).

You know, I've stayed good and quiet these last few days as the country looked back on the life of Ronald Reagan with rose-colored glasses. He was our president, he died of a horrible disease, and either one of those deserves a great deal of respect. But this is a bit much to ask me to swallow.

The sloganator redux.

Take back the airwaves! (Or...not)

I realize what they're trying to do here: basically create a liberal version of the conservative talk shows that pollute the airwaves, with snarling, cynical hosts who yell at callers. And I guess they succeeded. Ms. Rhodes seems to be every bit as much of a blowhard jackass as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Hopefully the rest of the shows on this network are less grating. I'd like to see this enterprise succeed, but ranting and raving (even if I do agree with the underlying opinions) just doesn't interest me.

Return of the sloganator.

Just as before, it's all kinds of fun to make mock campaign posters. Here's my quickie:

A stupid question.

Help spread the word.

Frankly, I find it outrageous that a president is running for re-election on the grounds that he'd done such great things on terrorism. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11

Ban all marriages!

The funny thing of course is that groups that support same-sex marriages are happy that they're treating everyone equally. Which I suppose is true...it's not discrimination if all people, gay or straight, are denied the right to marry.

Perhaps this is the solution states have been waiting for...ban marriage outright, and you won't have to worry about gay couples destroying the sanctity of marriage! Even better, divorce won't be an issue, nor will bigamy, adultery, or any of the other sinful practices that threaten marriage!

Wimp.

In the face of an extremely negative campaign, Senator Kerry has asked President Bush to engage in a series of monthly debates on the country's future -- debates on the real substance of the issues that face us. It's a simple proposal that could elevate the campaign and truly educate the country about the positions and records of each candidate. But President Bush's campaign brushed off the suggestion with a snide remark. That's why we're asking:

"President Bush, please stand up to real debates on the issues that face our country."

Rumsfeld's latest doublespeak.

Today, in a world of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and states that sponsor the former and pursue the latter, defending freedom means we must confront dangers before it is too late. In Iraq, for 12 years, through 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so. Instead of disarming — as Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine did, and as Libya is doing today — Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance.

Repeatedly, he rejected those resolutions and he systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent. The world knew his record: he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own citizens; he invaded Iran and Kuwait; he launched ballistic missiles at Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; and his troops repeatedly fired on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-flight zones.

What Mr. Rumsfeld fails to mention, as major intelligence agencies the world over have stated repeatedly, is that Saddam did disarm. He did ages ago. Sure he lied about it, and "defied" weapons inspectors, but the fact is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when we started this war. Rumsfeld is not only clinging to this irrational belief that they'll turn up somewhere, but he seems set on ignoring our previous failed attempts to find them.

For more Rumsfeld fun, watch this performance from Face the Nation as he stumbles to try and ignore his previous claims that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

I would like to take this time to remind everyone that we were told that Iraq wasn't just an imminent threat, it was so urgent, so threatening to American national security, that the U.N's suggestion of one last round of weapons inspections (which would have taken place mere weeks after Bush's deadline) was too long to wait. We were told that Iraq had these weapons, was ready to use them, and three weeks was too long to wait.

They lied. Or at best, were deceived by their skewed interpretation of intelligence because of a forgone conclusion. Period.

They can lie, or pretend these things didn't happen, or point to "weapons program related activities" but the fact is that a stack of papers isn't going to justify this war. Drawing parallels to World War II or the Korean War isn't going to either. Own up or shut up.

The endorsements keep on coming...

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

Today's random dumbass city in California.

Think about that for a moment.

I can wait.

Give up?

Let me write that out for you in shorthand: H2O.

That's right, they actually tried to ban water.

Morons.

Not exactly the endorsement he was hoping for...

The gay divorcee.

It is now said that over 3,000 couples have been married in San Francisco alone. That's great news, but I wonder if all of those couples are the sort that have been together for decades and have been waiting their whole lives for this opportunity. No doubt there are many of these, and probably even most of the couples tying the knot fall into this category.

But the problem with numbers that high, is that inevitably, there are going to be a few shotgun marriages. People who want to take advantage of this opportunity not because they've been married in every sense but legal for decades, but because they want to support the movement for political reasons. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but what happens when the first of these couples decides to go their separate ways. In other words, what happens when we see the first gay divorcee?

Divorce is done in such huge numbers among heterosexual couples that to assume there won't be any for gay couples is completely unrealistic. And any rational person will look at such a thing as being inevitable. But the conservative commentators? They'll have an absolute field day. They'll use it as an excuse to say that gay couples simply can't make marriage work, and that this is proof that the whole experiment will end in failure (ignoring of course, the statistics about heterosexual divorce).

There's not much anyone can do about this. I can only hope that the honeymoon for any shotgun couples lasts long enough that the furor will subside somewhat before they file formal papers for separation.

Son of primary madness.

But the big news is that Edwards is dropping out, leaving Kerry as the one major candidate remaining in the race. While it certainly limits the amount of choice those remaining states have, this is a good thing, as it means the Democratic party can finally come together and get behind a single candidate.

Already, Hillary Clinton has endorsed Kerry, and I'd expect more major Democratic figures to come out of the woodwork and throw their support behind the man. It's good that this has happened so early...Bush has a ton of money on his side, and can start campaigning immediately. With the primary all but officially over, general fundraising can start in earnest well before the convention in July. Also, Kerry can begin to find a running mate, a process which is already underway.

Super Tuesday begins.

Stick to sci-fi, jackass.

Among the tenets of this piece are such gems as "marriage is already open for everyone" (provided gay people marry people of the opposite sex, that is) and that a "family" by definition requires a mother, a father and children (I think there are many, many, many families with single parents that would seriously take offense at that).

You expect to read something like this from radically right wing ultraconservative wackos, but even though Orson Scott Card's politics have always been known to be right-wing, this is beyond the pale. I've only read one book by him (Ender's Game) and found it to be extremely overrated. I won't be reading another.

War is declared and battle come down.

For interesting commentary on this subject, read through Andrew Sullivan's blog. Sullivan is a conservative writer, but he's also gay, and his recent Time Magazine editorial is as clear and straightforward an argument for gay marriage as you'll read anywhere.

Hopefully this will be one of many issues that swings moderate voters away from the Conservative Christian Republican party.

Reason #6981 to hate the PATRIOT act.

So for our annual audit we're being forced to get the original checks. We don't actually have these on file, so we have to order them from the bank. Which will cost $5 a check, and take two weeks to get.

Oy.

Here's a headline for you...

May?

Yo quiero reelection.

Recommended reading.

These are couples who are willing to go the distance, to commit and connect, and who are eager to prove to themselves and the world that their love is something true and real and momentous, something that, in truth, can only serve to reignite and reunite our stagnant, fractured, contentious, 50 percent-divorce-rate nation. Hey, we need all the help we can get.

And one other thing was very apparent: It was a situation in which you simply could not imagine anyone hurling gobs of intolerant hate at it. It would have required a serious amount of nasty, inbred ignorance and appalling nerve to march up to any of the passionate and committed couples waiting patiently in line for their marriage ceremony and say, you know, God hates you for this, you immoral disgusting sodomites, and it's intolerable and unacceptable that you wish to love and honor each other till death do you part.

Still more primary craziness.

The primary race now has two real candidates: Edwards and Kerry, although believe it or not, Dean is still #2 in the delegate count with 201 to Edwards' 190. Kerry's far in the lead with 608, and Dean knew that a win in Wisconsin would be what he needed to propel him to success on "Super Tuesday", when 10 states all cast their votes.

Actually, Super Tuesday is when we have to vote here in NY, and I'm still undecided. I guess by default I'm going to vote for Kerry, although I'm not sure I see him as being any better or worse than Edwards. I'll have to give it some thought before March 2nd.

More primary madness.

Here's the latest delegate count (again, a full 2,161 delegates are needed to get the nomination, so Kerry's a quarter of the way there):

• Kerrry: 516
• Dean: 182
• Edwards: 165
• Clark: 102
• Sharpton: 12
• Kucinich: 2

Now that's going too far!

Me, I love the stuff. I try not to think about what I'm eating, or how it was produced, but you can't argue with the taste. Fortunately it's far, far too expensive to eat on anything resembling a regular basis, so I don't feel too guilty to be supporting such an evil thing.

Still, there are better ways to deal with this issue than to ban it. That article suggests -- and I agree with this idea -- that the way to do it is to let the market sort itself out. Over time, there's very little doubt in my mind that more humanely developed foie gras will eventually overtake this method, but people (and their chefs) need to be given the chance to make that choice on their own.

More twisted logic...

Bush report: Sending jobs overseas helps U.S.

An unusually specific demand letter.

I'm a fleet owner of a tanker company.

I have easy access to castor pulp. If my demand is dismissed I'm capable of making Ricin.

My demand is simple, January 4 2004 starts the new hours of service for trucks which include a ridiculous ten hours in the sleeper berth. Keep at eight or I will start dumping.

You have been warned this is the only letter that will be sent by me.

Fallen Angel

Those crazy primaries.

I'm jumping for joy that Lieberman has dropped out. Good riddance.

While the press seems bent on concentrating almost exclusively on who-won-what-state, it's important to remember that this isn't a state-by-state contest, it's about the delegates. And looking at those numbers shows a remarkably different picture from the one the press seems to be emphasizing:

For one thing, while Kerry is very much in the lead with 244 delegates, that's a fraction of the 2,100+ needed to get the nomination in July. In second place is Dean (yes, Dean) with 121, followed fairly closely by Edwards at 102 and Clark at 79. Despite what some people have been saying, this is a total four-way race, and any one of them could pull ahead at any given time.

On the bottom end, Sharpton's got 5, and Kucinich has 2. I doubt either will drop out any time soon (unless they run out of money, that is).

A fun Kerry flashback.

Hey, I love this guy.

"The government must exercise fiscal responsibility by limiting spending growth, focusing on the results of government programs, and cutting wasteful spending," Bush said.

But fiscal conservatives in both parties doubt Bush can deliver on his deficit reduction promises.

His fiscal 2005 budget left out the tens of billions sure to be needed next year to keep U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) and omitted a fix for provisions in the tax code that will put a big burden on many middle-class households.

The revolution is over.

So what happened? How will people look back in a year on this campaign? Will the entire movement be forgotten? I certainly hope not. It may have eventually gotten out of hand, but there really was something positive about the Dean movement and I hope it's not forgotten entirely. At the same time, I doubt we'll see the kind of "preaching to the choir" that Dean's followers wound up doing on such a high level ever again.

So uh...

Row v. Wade at 31

For a status report on abortion rights in this country, including a thorogh run-through of the real facts behind what has been dubbed "partial birth" abortions, read this article from the ACLU.

The wacky world of politics.

Regardless, there's no denying that the race got much more interesting. Personally, I'm still completely on the fence. I could go with Kerry, Edwards, Clark or Dean, although my long-standing reticence about Dean has been growing lately.

I've been asked a few times why I've been so hesitant to back Dean, and the answer is this: I've watched the Internet support for Dean start with a spark and turn into a full-on blaze, and all this time, I have the distinct impression that many of these people have no clue who they're getting behind. For many Dean supporters, it's the movement that's important, not the candidate. To me, that's not democracy, that's what gives rise to fascism.

I don't think Dean's a bad candidate (hey, I may wind up voting for the guy), but at the same time, I fail to see what has gotten so many people whipped into a frenzy. So many of these people are quick to spout platitudes like, "He's a different kind of candidate" and "He believes in the people" that I just scratch my head and wonder who these people think they're supporting.

Maybe I'll just vote for Al Sharpton. He hasn't a chance in hell, but he's still got a better chance than Kucinich (at least in New York, anyway).

Well, I voted for him.

But more than that, this speech is a direct attack at the Bush administration's environmental history, which has been called the worst of any president in this country's history. Gore calls it, "reckless in the extreme", and he doesn't just make wild accusations, he backs everything up, showing the consequences of what the Bush administration has done.

Plus he shows a clip from Futurama (which his daughter was a writer on, and he's been on twice). So you know it's worth checking out.

So go watch it, or read it. And then get good and depressed about the man who currently occupies the oval office. Then get angry, and make sure we don't have to suffer through another four years of this.

Speaking of reckless spending...

Oy. You know, you'd really think this country had lots of money to throw around. We don't, in case you've forgotten.

I have ridden the mighty moon worm.

...except that $12 billion ain't going to get us to Mars. Not even close. The rest of the money for this ambitious project is going to have to be paid by Bush's sucessor(s), regardless of whether or not he serves a second term. Hopefully by that point the economy will be hunky dory, and everyone will be prosperous.

It's a good thing we won't have to worry about the escalating costs of social security as the baby boomer generation grows older. Oh wait. We do, don't we. Well, at least there won't be a trillion dollars worth of federal deficit to pay of- oh wait. No, there's that too. Hm. Well, gosh...I wonder where this money will come from then...ah, who cares. It'll come from somewhere, right? That's how we justified the second round of tax cuts.

Sigh.

Whiskey tango foxtrot?

After five straight questions about Iraq and the war on terrorism, Fineman asks Dean, out of nowhere, "Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?"

Dean, belying his reputation for having a hot temper, gives a low-key reply: "I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I'm saved or not is not gonna be up to me."

Also worth a read: Salon's article on The Media vs. Howard Dean, which suggests that they're doing to Dean what was done to Gore. I'm still undecided in the primary, but that doesn't change my outrage at such ridiculous coverage for a major candidate (and frontrunner).

Today's argument for gay marriage.

There are grounds for this Court to grant an annulment to pursuant to NRS 125.330 because Plaintiff Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage because before entering into the marriage the Plaintiff and Defendant did not know each others likes and dislikes, each others desires to have or not have children and each others desires as to State of residency. Upon learning of each others desires, they are so incompatible that there was a want of understanding of each others actions in entering into this marriage.

A new low.

It's called "Santa isn't coming this christmas" and it attempts to sell people on the idea that the cow's milk they're leaving out for Santa Claus is making him impotent. To quote their slogan, "Milk can make you impotent. Soy brings joy." Leaving aside for a moment the fact that their attempts to connect dairy and/or beef products with impotence in the past have been sketchy at best, isn't this a bit sleezy even for them? Like it or not, there are a lot of children for whom Santa Claus still means something, and it's just mean-spirited to post something like that. Of course, compared to their other new campaign, that's nothing.

PETA activists will be standing outside of showings of The Nutcracker and handing out pamphlets titled, "Your Mommy Kills Animals!" to children. Here's their description of this clearly child-friendly tract:

Kids will see the bloody truth behind their moms’ pretentious pelts. Accompanied by graphic photographs of skinned carcasses and animals languishing on fur farms, children will read: "Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry-just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks the street

Okay, this is funny.

Recommended Reading

"Government regulation is no big deal, they're just reinforcing industry ratings." Wrong. None of the proposed bills are based on the ESRB ratings system. In fact, it's unconstitutional for the U.S. government to regulate or enforce a private ratings system. As such, each bill aims to set its own moral barometer and establish often vague metrics for what is acceptable for everyone to purchase and play. Dancing around a state-by-state patchwork of content restrictions and peculiarities would be prohibitive not only for developers, but also for time-deprived parents and retailers (who are already working with an existing rating system).

What is wrong with these people?

You know what? I think I might go and burn a flag this weekend. I have nothing against the flag, it looks nice when it's waving and generally speaking I like it very much. But it's my Constitutional right to do so, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone tell me otherwise. And frankly, I think that'll make me more of a patriot than half the people who claim to be one.

"We have a deranged president"

Do you not think of Bush and Ashcroft as Americans?

I think of them as an alien army. They have managed to take over everything, and quite in the open. We have a deranged president. We have despotism. We have no due process.

Jack Thompson is a horrible human being.

On June 25, one man was killed, and one woman seriously injured by two teenage boys who fired loaded rifles at a car driving through the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. It's a horrible story. The man who was slain was 45, the injured girl just 19. The lawsuit seeks to hold Rockstar Games, Take Two Interactive and Wal-Mart responsible for a sum of $246 million, as the kids supposedly got the idea for this by playing Grand Theft Auto III. I don't blame the families of the victims for bringing this suit. How could I? This was a nightmare of the worst kind, made even more so by the randomness by which the victims were chosen. No, the person to blame for this is Jack Thimpson, the attorney behind the suit, and a despicable excuse for a human being.

The fact is, that the families of the victims are in serious pain, and they're reaching out for some kind of explanation for what happened. And sadly, there is no easy explanation. Except professional sleezebag Jack Thompson swooped down and told them that there is a simple explanation, and that it's the video games these kids were playing. Now, for a moment, just think about what he's doing here. He's preying on the suffering of these people. And I have a real problem with that. Can you imagine the kind of disgusting morals a person has to have to call up victims of a horrible crime like this and tell them that there are big corporations that are to blame?

As for his claims, they are of course, completely groundless. Even if you believe that playing games is enough to give children this sort of murderous impulse, the fact remains that you can't hurt anyone with a video game. Just to prove my point, let's think about the facts again. Here we have two teenagers, who got their hands on loaded rifles. And you want to blame the video game?

Believing that the game is responsible is one thing. Pushing for legislation is extreme and groundless, but what Thompson is doing is far worse. What he's doing here is dragging these poor families through a process that will prevent them from moving on with their lives. He's done it before (like the case against id Software and others which was dropped) and he'll do it again. He even tried to pin the Washington sniper murders on Halo.

I can't say I believe in any kind of hell, but if there is one, I'll take pleasure in knowing that there's a room partitioned off for slime like him.

Well, he lost my vote.

Breaking with most of his Democratic rivals, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday he favors amending the Constitution to ban flag burning.

Well, they're still the best we've got.

Eventually, the problem was found. Apparently, the guy had pulled back the giant lever inside the booth before the person on the outside had pulled his lever to enable the vote, and so when they reset the booth (a process that involved actually stepping inside the curtain -- I won't tell if you don't) he was able to go ahead and cast his vote.

Me, I was in and out of there in five minutes. I showed up, voted no on Nonpartisan Elections, picked a few people along party lines, and was out of there. But this display just hammered home the need for new voting machines. These giant metal monstrosities are getting really old, and it's time to replace them. This one looked like it had fallen off the truck a few times, and come to think of it, it probably was. The electronic voting machines that are favored by many are well, evil, and I have serious doubts that there will ever be a 100% tamper-proof e-voting procedure. What we need here in New York are new, better-designed mechanical machines. Counting paper ballots may suck, but at least there is always a perfect paper record (whether or not the court system will bother paying attention to it when the times comes is a whole other issue entirely).

Here's a great headline for you...

"Bush Blames Terrorists for Iraq Attacks"

And you can bet it's true, too. Nothing gets past that president of ours.

Stop persecuting the rich!

...the morality that says it's ok to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population, is the morality that says that the Holocaust is ok because they didn't target everybody. It's just a small percentage what are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you, it's them. And arguing that it's ok to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them, and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us it should treat us all equally. And the argument that Bill Clinton used when he wanted to raise taxes in 1993 is I'm only going to tax the top 2%, so this doesn't affect the rest of you, I'm only going to get some of these guys, not you, others.

The challenge there, when people use that rhetoric, in addition to the fact that I think it's immoral to separate the society, by, uh, when South Africa divided society by race, that was wrong. When East Germany divided them by income and class, that was wrong. East Germany was not an improvement over South Africa. Dividing people so when you can mug them one at a time is a bad thing to do. Whether you do on racial grounds, religious grounds, whether you work on Saturdays or not grounds, economic grounds.

Draw your own conclusions...

Update: Matt points out in the comments that it's the lead story on Fox's main page (although I don't know if that was always the case).

He started it!

Never one to take a spitball to the eye without retaliation, Fox fired back a wad of their own by posting on their website a story that prominently features Carlson's real home phone number -- in the headline, nonetheless.

I don't want to publicize this too much, but I heard Fox calling CNN a stupid-head yesterday. Oooooh.

So uh...

I'm not knocking late-night variety shows or anything (although they really aren't my cup of tea and I haven't watched one in years and years) but don't these figures have more important things to do than appear on a show between the "top ten list" and "stupid pet tricks"?

Jeez, that didn't take long...

I'm still waiting for Clark to unveil his platform, as his campaign web site still hasn't got the same kind of breakdown on the issues that the others have. But he'll be at the debate this week (which is apparently being held at mine and Heather's alma mater!) so we should know more by then.

Finally, a real candidate?

But I'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet. So far Clark's been able to get by with general statements which have been cobbled together to guess at his positions on the various issues. Hopefully within hours of his candidacy being announced he'll throw up a full web site so we can see flat out where he stands on everything. The rest of the candidates have been really good about doing that, so I expect nothing less from this late entry to the race.

See, this is why the constitution exists.

I'm sure there are still going to be lots of people who are wondering why this is such a big deal. After all, these powers are being used against criminals, right? And why are we complaining about giving rights to felons? The reasons are simple...the Patriot Act defines a "terrorist" so poorly that there's no telling what it could be applied to. Shoplifting?

This isn't just paranoia, it's actually really a possibility. The Bush administration has done an incredible job at chipping away at the system of checks and balances that was put in place for good reason. Whoever ousts him next year (and I pray someone does) should have a solid plan to get this country back in line with the vision of the constitution. I just hope we don't get any worse before things get better.

A Passion Play

Here are their specific points of concern, from that press release:

• The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.
• The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
•  The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.
•  The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.
•  The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.

Now I'm as liberal as they come...I believe in total free speech and Mel Gibson has the right to make a movie about anything he wants. If he decided to make a pro-Nazi film, that's his right. But there is a real danger here, and one that needs to be addressed openly. The Catholic church long absolved Jews of any crime of deicide, but Gibson is a member of a church that splintered off from mainstream Catholicism, and therefore his church doesn't necessarily accept that. What I think needs to be done here is to show an interfaith discussion of these issues. If the only ones speaking out on this are Jewish, it'll look like we're the only ones with a problem with this, and that is very much not the case, as leaders from a cross-section of religions have all expressed their concern. If you're still not sure of the danger, read this and this at the ADL's web site, as they provide some important historical background.

A good read.

The beat goes on...

The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's also the disturbing quote that says "the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy" but just as with Iraq, there is no indication of the rebuilding process or exit strategy for American troops.

I won't argue that serious intervention isn't needed in North Korea -- it is, easily more so than the need for such intervention in Iraq -- but our military is already struggling in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter of which is descending into chaos, and without further help from us will revert back to its previous state) and attempting to wage a war on three fronts is downright ludicrous. Especially in light of the continuing daily guerilla-style attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

Go read now.

I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions.

It's just getting crazier and crazier over there...

Yeesh. I definitely agree with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who decided not to run, saying that the election, "is becoming more and more like a carnival every day." The sad thing is of course that there are some serious issues that need to be addressed in California, and they're getting overshadowed by the insane nominees that keep coming forward.

The California circus continues.

Can you imagine the debates for this election? I'd be willing to bet they'll be funnier than any reality show on television. Between these two, Larry Flynt and god help us, an actual legitimate politician or two, it would be seriously hysterical.

More proof that California is insane.

So wait...are church and state still separate?

What most people tend to forget when talking about this issue, is that there's more at stake here than just the morality of homosexuality. Married couples are entitled to certain benefits in this country, which include the ability to file taxes jointly and better healthcare coverage to name just two. All of this because of a simple piece of paper that says two people are in a committed relationship. Whether or not you're willing to accept the fact that two men or women can be in such a thing, the fact that these benefits are being denied to these couples is absolutely unconstitutional, and it may take a decade or two but that fact will eventually be discovered in this country.

I bristle every time I hear any politician talk about "morals" in the lawmaking process. I don't care about their morality, because in many cases (such as our current administration and half the justices on the Supreme Court) their morality varies from my own. It strikes me as insane that people are still willing to listen to a politician tell them that the government has a role to uphold a certain (translation: their) standard of morality, and this is the #1 argument against gay marriage. So pass your law, Bush. But in 5, 10 or 20 years, or however long it takes, you'll be looked at with the same disdain as Strom Thurman's "dixicrat" presidential bid. Embarassing, outdated, and unbelievable that intelligent people ever believed such things.

Shooting at City Hall

I'm not looking forward to my commute home tonight...

Update: They're now saying for certain that Councilman Davis has died, and according to MSNBC, the second "victim" is the shooter, who has also died.

Which is chosen??

The other day I took this presidential candidate selector, and was surprised to see Dennis Kucinich at the top of my list. But sure enough, I've read through his views on the issues, and it seems like of all the candidates, his views are most in line with my own (with some exceptions, of course). But the question arises...is that what I'm looking for?

As much as I hate to admit it, 99% of the country does not share my views on gun control, healthcare, the environment, the death penalty, civil liberties, abortion, affirmative action...and so on. And while I think a candidate with those same views would be ideal, there's no way in hell he'd actually get elected. And let's face it...the primary concern of the democratic party in this election should be to get a nominee who can actually win. And I find it very hard to believe that Kucinich can carry some of the more conservative states that even Al Gore was able to get.

So who does that leave? I absolutely detest Joe Lieberman (so much so that were it possible in New York I would have voted for somebody else for vice president in the last election), and John Kerry doesn't seem very likely to pull any more states than Kucinich. Which pretty much leaves Howard Dean, the poster boy for Internet campaigning. Dean says a lot of the right things, but there's still a lot up in the air with him, especially when it comes to his plans for the economy and military spending in particular.

We'll see what happens as we get closer to the primary. Next year is going to be a pretty wild one for campaigning, and I want to know my primary vote is going towards the person who can really win this thing.

Worse than Watergate?

In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute , which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

Of course! It's so simple!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iraq ( news -web sites ) may have destroyed its purported chemical and biological weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday in an effort to explain why none had been found.

But wait...isn't that what we were accusing them of not doing? We were told that their WMDs presented such an imminent threat that we couldn't wait mere weeks for the last round of inspections France and other U.N. members requested. Yeesh. I hope this blows up in their faces, but I have a sinking feeling it will just be swallowed by the majority of people in this country without a second thought.

But wait! We did find weapons of mass destruction! Unfortunately, they're in Washington.

The blind men of news coverage.

What I've found very interesting about all of this, is how each news outlet paints a different picture. This goes beyond just how they refer to the war, but more about how they actually describe the events. Now, there's no major difference between say, the NY Times and CNN, but their correspondents all have different reports from different places. And there is a major difference between those two and the BBC, and certainly Al Jazeera, which takes a wholly different stance on everything. In this regard, I look at all this coverage as the news outlet equivalent of the fable of the blind men and the elephant, all seeing a small piece of a greater whole.

Regardless, I find the news that the worst may be over (however cautiously) very encouraging. I am against this war, and very much against the military occupation that will follow it, but I would like nothing more than to see the whole debacle be over and done with already. There is still time to keep this from shattering our relations with the rest of the world (heck, even Ted Rall says so) and the optimist in me wants to believe that will happen. Of course, the optimist in me also was sure Al Gore would win in 2000, and that we wouldn't go to war in the first place, so what the heck do I know.

...what is it good for?

In other War news (no, not WAR news -- there hasn't been any of that in decades) house rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has stepped up and actually shown he has some balls. I admire his speech, but question his motives. His point-by-point statement hits all the right notes for me, but seeing as how he's a democratic presidential contender you have to wonder how sincere it is. Still, I'll say this much for the guy...with that one speech he said enough to spark my interest.

And lastly today, we have this great article at the Village Voice which also goes point-by-point on our rationale for this war, and points out that the administration's reasoning has been based on lies and deceptions since day one.

Of course, neither of those two things will probably sway anyone's opinion. I mean, I know there are a lot of people "supporting the troops" and all, but I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people believe we're doing the right thing here. That's just yet another thing that scares the crap out of me.

Oh, and in case it wasn't terribly obvious (which I like to think it was), yesterday's post was an April Fool's gag. I most certainly am not moving to Texas. I'm moving within Brooklyn, but that's about as far as I'm going.

No...really?

Other Republicans and Bush administration officials, some close to Powell, also expressed concern that the Iraq war plan, with its "rolling start" using a relatively small force, was based on faulty assumptions that the Iraqi government would quickly collapse. Moreover, there is fear among some officials, especially in the State Department, that postwar diplomacy, if handled poorly, could result in further U.S. estrangement from allies and international institutions.

"The only one who can reach the president is his father," one former senior official said. "But it is not timely yet to talk to him."

The Semantics of War

CNN, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The BBC have all stuck with "The War in Iraq", which is probably the most accurate, although Reuters' "The War in the Gulf" is pretty accurate as well (if slightly non-specific). ABC News is much more blunt, choosing instead "The War with Iraq" which implies that it's one whole country against another. Given that there are Kurds and non-aligned people in Iraq, this is a little misleading. Newsday makes a similar choice, with "Conflict with Iraq" which is totally wishy-washy. And then there's "The War on Iraq" which is similar to ABC and Newsday, but with a strange, detached quality to it, which is used by Time Magazine and The Nation. Incidentally, this is also the one used by The Onion, who use that along with the possibly more accurate, "Operation: Piss off the Planet."

Being more conservative than most news outlets, FOX News has chosen "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" to emphasize our plans to liberate the oppressed peoples of that war-torn nation. CBS News totally chickens out, and doesn't even mention Iraq in their title, "America at War", which is so ambiguous that it could mean Iraq, or the war on terrorism, or the war on illiteracy. I bet they saved a bundle by recycling their old graphics for this.

Fully embracing the cowboy mentality our president gets accused of, the NY Post has gone with "Showdown with Sadaam." Yeehaw! MSNBC doesn't fare much better with their title, "Target: Iraq" which makes it sound like an assassination, or a complete leveling of the country, and not the rough n' tumble war we're fighting.

And then there's the good ol' New York Times and their title, "A Nation at War," which I suppose is the same as CBS News' title, but feels like it has less hyperbole (the name of this country has been abused enough lately). A fine choice for this country's most respected paper.

You have to wonder how long it took them to come up with these titles. I forget who it was, but someone mentioned in a blog a week or two before this war started that they found it disturbing that somewhere, someone had an MP3 of the music that would be used as a lead-in for CNN's war coverage.

All we are saying...

My opposition to this comes down to these simple things:

• We don't have the support of the world.
• This will very likely cause more terrorist attacks towards us, not less.
• There is absolute double-standard going on between Iraq and North Korea, which not only has weapons of mass destruction, but has threatened to use them against us and our allies.
• Our short-sighted plan will most likely destabilize the region more than it already is, not instantly democratize it. That kind of ignorance is what let to the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the first place.
• That anyone will benefit from this war commercially is a seriously disturbing notion, but apparently it will happen.

The Oscars are this weekend, and ordinarily I would be excited beyond belief...and part of me still is. But if we go to war, the whole evening is going to have a dark undercurrent. On the plus side, I'm looking forward to seeing how many people use their newly given right to speak about the war during the ceremony.

Ten things that give me hope.

1. Not all stories end in tragedy.
2. I live in the greatest city in the world, where 75% of my fellow new yorkers are against this looming war with Iraq.
3. Jimmy Carter.
4. The ACLU.
5. Even the Texas judicial system has to answer to a higher court.
6. At least in some parts of this country people haven't lost their minds.
7. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, there is still a division of church and state in this country.
8. CNN, NY1 and The BBC.
9. The Detroit Project, and their wonderful ads and the rest of the growing anti-SUV campaign.
10. Christopher Reeve's amazing progress.

Ten things that scare the crap out of me.

1. That our elected officials are so jingoistic and xenophobic that they would stoop this low.
2. That our fearsome war machine keeps rolling on.
3. Our relentless need for oil, regardless of its effect on our environment.
4. The Department of Homeland Security.
5. The Texas judicial system.
6. That we live in a world where this sort of thing still happens.
7. That even Bush senior doesn't advise going to war without international support.
8. That the one person I wanted to vote for in '04, and who would have had the best shot at defeating our current president, isn't running.
9. SUVs.
10. The extent to which our civil liberties are quietly being taken away.